The purpose of this brief report is to present a balanced look at current issues surrounding the education reform known as "academic standards." Prepared by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at the request of Greater Phoenix Leadership, the information contained in this report is intended for a business audience. It does not advocate any particular stance or make policy recommendations, but rather presents a platform from which the business community might choose a position. The report is organized around four areas of interest: (1) the national context for academic standards, (2) facts regarding Arizona's standards, (3) the pros and cons of academic standards, and (4) specific issues and positions in the national business community related to academic standards.

With unemployment up, consumer spending down, and governments facing revenue shortfalls, Arizona must become more competitive than ever before. AZ Workforce: Latinos, Youth and the Future, produced as part of the ASU Office of Public Affairs’ César E. Chávez Leadership Lecture, examines the “unfinished business” of Arizona’s workforce. The report notes reasons why the workforce remains a critical issue: A skilled workforce is critical to expanding the state’s economy. Arizonans must have the skills employers need. Arizona ranks 17th on Milken Institute’s State Science and Technology Index overall, but 33rd among states on the Human Capital Index; Demographic shifts have put workforce issues front and center. Aging and minority growth in light of enduring disparities make Arizona’s current workforce a priority; and, Arizona’s employers will have to look harder at homegrown workers. Conservatively speaking, for everyK-12 student another Arizonan needs help with skills. For example, more than 430,000 Arizonans do not speak English well, while more than 600,000 Arizonans did not finish high school. AZ Workforce looks at big picture facts and figures about the state’s 3-million-strong workforce. By 2030, Arizona may have more than 10 million residents. A key part of the big picture is that the generation replacing older workers has less education than today’s mature workforce.

The report includes original articles by Arizona policy practitioners and observers, reprints of pertinent articles by experts beyond Arizona, and a list for further reading. Articles of varying lengths and complexities are purposefully included so as to offer something to readers with different levels of interest in and knowledge of the subject matter.

In 1988 and 1995, statewide surveys provided "snapshots" of the status of K-12 arts education in Arizona. These milestone studies showed a continuum of programs and a variety of strengths and challenges across the state. In the years since -- even as landmark education and arts policies were adopted and arts organizations became important sources of enrichment and learning -- Arizona’s educators and arts professionals have had to rely on local anecdotes, personal experience, and partial reports to gauge the status and impact of school- and community-based arts education. To answer today’s questions about arts education in schools and communities, the Arizona Arts Education Research Institute and Maricopa Partnership for Arts and Culture, instead of another snapshot, chose to determine the feasibility of mechanisms to track formal and informal -- or school- and community-based -- arts education over the long term. Morrison Institute for Public Policy (School of Public Affairs, College of Public Programs) designed the Beyond Snapshots study to gather input from a selection of state arts education experts, teachers, and representatives from schools, districts, and arts and culture organizations.

Because of the urgency of workforce issues and the desire to begin a statewide discussion about workforce goals and choices, the Governor’s Council on Workforce Policy wanted to understand if, and how, program governance and organization are hampering progress and what changes might be beneficial. The council asked Morrison Institute for Public Policy (School of Public Affairs, College of Public Programs, Arizona State University) to: (1) Explore the strengths and weaknesses of the organization of Arizona’s workforce system, particularly at the state level (2) Review how other states have revamped their systems and connected workforce and economic development (3) Recommend options for improving Arizona’s system During the second half of 2003, Morrison Institute for Public Policy talked with more than 60 workforce professionals, business people, and workforce board members across Arizona either individually or in small groups, researched other states’ approaches through interviews with officials in other states and national organizations, analyzed responses to an online survey of selected local workforce investment board members, and reviewed a wide variety of materials on economic, workforce, and community development. This report is the first of many steps for Arizona to reflect and act on workforce development governance and its system, because as Thurgood Marshall said, "You can’t stand still. You must move, and if you don’t move, they will run over you."

Economic development leaders and public officials throughout the country are tending to the effects of a sour economy and huge state budget deficits when they would rather be creating quality jobs and new economy assets. According to the most prominent thinking on today’s knowledge economy, locally developed and exported technology will be the primary economic differentiator between future winners and losers. Thus, with long-term fiscal and economic health at stake, the 50-state race is on for advantages and leadership in science and technology. This report sheds light on these issues through an overview of Arizona’s standing in science and technology today, short case studies of four competitors in the west, as well as Arizona, and ideas for Arizona’s leaders to consider as they strive to give our state an edge.

This paper, drawing upon historical data and information from surveys and interviews with more than 50 legislators, lobbyists, and knowledgeable observers, finds that the term limits reform adopted by the Arizona voters in 1992 has caused legislators to make some painful adjustments. Because of term limits many legislators have decided to run for another office prior to the expiration of their terms. This has often meant trying to move from the one legislative house to another, most commonly from the House to the Senate. On the plus side, the report finds that term limits have encouraged greater competition for legislative and other seats and have given voters a greater choice among candidates. To some extent, limits have been a force toward a more inclusive governing process. At the same time, they have generally reduced the power of legislative leaders and generally increased the influence of lobbyists and staff, though not all lobbyists and staff have gained equally. Recent newcomers to the Arizona Legislature are probably not any less knowledgeable than previous classes of newcomers, but under term limits there are more newcomers and members have less time to learn their jobs. For many, the limit to four two-year terms (eight years total) provides too little time to learn how to do the job and do it well.

This report both updates statistics and perceptions and adds new features. Thus, readers may look at quality of life based on how residents feel or on the trend lines revealed in the numbers. What Matters reports what people think about Greater Phoenix, how they view their own lives, and whether they believe the region is on the right or wrong track. The sections are presented in the order of importance assigned to them by the survey rankings (i.e., Education appears first, Public Safety and Crime second, etc).

What Matters is intended to support decision-making on public issues and to provide a reference for policy makers, civic and business leaders, community activists, and other residents. In response to feedback on previous issues, this edition includes additional indicators for healthcare and more information on higher education. Price and income data have been adjusted for inflation, and more information has been added where appropriate for a fuller picture of trends. Different approaches or completely new sources of data were required in some of this issue’s indicators because of changes in data sources. While every effort was made to choose items that would be stable, there is no way to control for how data are collected or reported over the years. On the whole, however, the 1997 baseline remains intact.